Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Bernie Sanders says if Congress had listened to him, there’d have been no financial crisis

Debating with Hillary Clinton Thursday night, Bernie Sanders argued that Congress’s decision to repeal an old law called Glass-Steagall over his objection led to the financial crisis of 2007-‘08.

I think as Secretary Clinton knows, there’s nobody who fought harder — I was on the House financial committee at that point — I heard the arguments coming from Democrats and Republicans. Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan about how great an idea would be if we did away with Glass-Steagall and allowed investment banks to merge. Go to YouTube today. Look up Greenspan/Sanders. I helped lead the effort against deregulation. Unfortunately, we lost that. The result is, was, the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.

The argument over whether Glass-Steagall was a good idea and should be reinstated is an interesting one with some good points on both sides, but the allegation that the Glass-Steagall repeal was the cause of the financial crisis is entirely unfounded.

What Glass-Steagall did was prevent a single company from engaging in both retail banking (taking deposits and making loans) and investment banking (underwriting securities and speculative trading), on the theory that you had to prevent a situation in which investment banking mistakes could lead to the loss of bank deposits. This is a legitimate thing to worry about, if you like, but it’s not what the problem was during the financial crisis.

Indeed, if you look at a sophisticated argument in favor of a new Glass-Steagall bill like the one made by economist (and Sanders supporter) Dean Baker, he doesn’t say that the combination of retail and investment banking caused the crisis. Indeed, he says the opposite. The crux of the real debate, Baker says, is that “there really is no downside” to banning combined banking, so Congress might as well do it on better safe than sorry grounds. Others, like Michael Grunwald and most of the economic policy team in the Obama administration think that combined banking makes the system moderately more stable.

Interestingly, Nordic countries like Sanders’s beloved Denmark have large universal banks that engage in all different kinds of banking.

More in Politics

Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Can Trump lower gas prices?Can Trump lower gas prices?
The Logoff

What suspending the gas tax would mean for you, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters